The entry-level people need to get papers of their own out, the way academia's set up. Besides, someone is going to have to pay for the duplication of research, and that doesn't appear to be all that popular with funding agencies.
As as non-scientist, I'm not real comfortable with this. If you run the provided code with the provided data set, presumably you'll get the provided results. That isn't replication or reproduction in any useful sense.
According to Wikipedia, Flat Earthers are increasing in number, due to increasing influence of ignorant or stupid but popular people through social media.
For example whether you are married or single should have ZERO impact on your taxes.
It's more complicated than that. Consider two married couples with family incomes of $100K. In the first, the husband and wife each earn $50K; in the second, one of them earns $100K while the other does support functions (taking over most of the housework, being available for company events, etc. - I have a relative who was a corporate wife, and couldn't have a real career of her own). Should they pay the same or different taxes? If they're taxed as single people, then the household with one primary money earner gets taxed more, which doesn't seem right to many people. If they're taxed as a couple, should they be taxed the same as an individual who makes that much money? How much incentive do we want to give people to get divorced (or not get married) to save money on taxes? (I know a woman who got married for the tax advantage.) I haven't come up with a scheme I consider fair.
So, some IRS employees didn't understand the law correctly, but since you were disputing the law they referred it to someone who did know the law. Isn't this how the system is supposed to work?
We know about how much fossil fuel we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere. We also measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. As far as changing the temperature goes, it doesn't matter whether we put the CO2 in the atmosphere directly or release some because of warming. Either method is anthropogenic, directly or indirectly. And here you are making crap up about what scientists do and don't know and trying to make elaborate arguments to deny reality.
When Saturn didn't move like we expected it to, the result was Uranus. When that didn't move as expected, we found Neptune.
The orbital mechanics of Mercury are a single thing, originally explained by the hypothetical planet Vulcan and then Special Relativity. Dark Matter explains several different things, including galactic rotation and gravitational lensing.
I find atheism to be equally irrational and presumptive
Which sorts of atheism? There's all sorts around, including "I don't believe in God", "Death to theists!", "I wish Christians would stop picking on me", and many more.
The way things are going, probably another six years.
Trump won a narrow victory, and has been alienating significant numbers of his supporters since, as well as energizing his opponents. The 2020 Democratic campaign is likely to be better run than the 2016 one (wouldn't be hard). Besides, I have no faith that Trump will be in any physical shape to run in 2020.
I'm a leftist (so I usually vote Democrat) and something of a pragmatist, so I vote for the lesser of two evils. If you refuse to vote for the lesser evil, you are being completely useless as a voter.
What could the FBI have done about that? Being a threat in general is not a criminal offense. Being the sort of person who could plausibly be seen committing mass murder isn't a crime. About the only thing law enforcement could have done is follow the guy 24/7 and try to stop him when he actually committed a crime. That sort of thing is expensive, and I don't know how many other people were deemed similarly threatening and didn't actually kill anyone.
if the courts find it reasonable, law enforcement officials have the right to violate your privacy.
Which is not the same thing as the ability to violate your privacy. There's nothing in the Constitution that suggests that individual citizens should be required to make it easy.
Apple ignored a Federal warrant requiring them to assist in accessing a phone used by a dead terrorist.
Nope. Apple handed over the information it had, which is what a warrant is for. The FBI wanted Apple to write special software, and Apple quite properly argued about that in the court system, since they disagreed with it. The courts do not exist to be rubber stamps for government agencies.
The phone was actually owned by the employer of the dead terrorist and they gave permission to the FBI to do anything required to access the phone but Apple still refused.
Let's see. There was no reason the think there was anything useful on that phone (the terrorist's personal phone had been wiped before the terrorist attack), and the FBI ordered the employer to do something that ended the possible access. Moreover, you're getting your entities mixed up. The FBI indeed could do anything with the phone.
And a couple of days later they ended up getting a big kick in the nuts as a third party proved Apples vaunted security technology was complete bullshit.
Apple's security technology has been improving. The phone in question was an iPhone 5C, which is the last model without the Secure Enclave, which removed a good many attack avenues.
A social medium is valuable to the extent that it has my friends and family on it. If only 10% were on one platform, 10% on another, etc., what's the point?
Our current hardware is literally overpowered for every task we need it to do, if proper coding would be taught and implemented.
We'd love more powerful hardware. We spend a lot of work trying to get things to work faster on the computers we have. If we had computers that ran faster, we could spend more time getting stuff to work than getting it to work fast. It's not a common problem, but there are people who are writing software that solves hard problems.
Because, when you're making progress only 25% as fast as expected, you need six-hour daily meetings to figure out why. Duh. Haven't you ever been a manager?
Slashdot Mirror
The entry-level people need to get papers of their own out, the way academia's set up. Besides, someone is going to have to pay for the duplication of research, and that doesn't appear to be all that popular with funding agencies.
I've seen code written by physicists. It's not pretty.
As as non-scientist, I'm not real comfortable with this. If you run the provided code with the provided data set, presumably you'll get the provided results. That isn't replication or reproduction in any useful sense.
According to Wikipedia, Flat Earthers are increasing in number, due to increasing influence of ignorant or stupid but popular people through social media.
It's more complicated than that. Consider two married couples with family incomes of $100K. In the first, the husband and wife each earn $50K; in the second, one of them earns $100K while the other does support functions (taking over most of the housework, being available for company events, etc. - I have a relative who was a corporate wife, and couldn't have a real career of her own). Should they pay the same or different taxes? If they're taxed as single people, then the household with one primary money earner gets taxed more, which doesn't seem right to many people. If they're taxed as a couple, should they be taxed the same as an individual who makes that much money? How much incentive do we want to give people to get divorced (or not get married) to save money on taxes? (I know a woman who got married for the tax advantage.) I haven't come up with a scheme I consider fair.
So, some IRS employees didn't understand the law correctly, but since you were disputing the law they referred it to someone who did know the law. Isn't this how the system is supposed to work?
We know about how much fossil fuel we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere. We also measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. As far as changing the temperature goes, it doesn't matter whether we put the CO2 in the atmosphere directly or release some because of warming. Either method is anthropogenic, directly or indirectly. And here you are making crap up about what scientists do and don't know and trying to make elaborate arguments to deny reality.
When Saturn didn't move like we expected it to, the result was Uranus. When that didn't move as expected, we found Neptune.
The orbital mechanics of Mercury are a single thing, originally explained by the hypothetical planet Vulcan and then Special Relativity. Dark Matter explains several different things, including galactic rotation and gravitational lensing.
Which sorts of atheism? There's all sorts around, including "I don't believe in God", "Death to theists!", "I wish Christians would stop picking on me", and many more.
That's still a savings. Suppose there's an item at $100. Mark it up 50%, and it's $150. Now, 40% of $150 is $60, and $150 - $60 is $90.
Trump won a narrow victory, and has been alienating significant numbers of his supporters since, as well as energizing his opponents. The 2020 Democratic campaign is likely to be better run than the 2016 one (wouldn't be hard). Besides, I have no faith that Trump will be in any physical shape to run in 2020.
I'm a leftist (so I usually vote Democrat) and something of a pragmatist, so I vote for the lesser of two evils. If you refuse to vote for the lesser evil, you are being completely useless as a voter.
Since when have the FBI and the Left been on speaking terms, let alone supporting each other?
What could the FBI have done about that? Being a threat in general is not a criminal offense. Being the sort of person who could plausibly be seen committing mass murder isn't a crime. About the only thing law enforcement could have done is follow the guy 24/7 and try to stop him when he actually committed a crime. That sort of thing is expensive, and I don't know how many other people were deemed similarly threatening and didn't actually kill anyone.
Are you under the impression that people of only one party commit perjury and get away with it?
Which is not the same thing as the ability to violate your privacy. There's nothing in the Constitution that suggests that individual citizens should be required to make it easy.
In other words, vulnerable to a range of attacks. Publication, one way or another, of top secret material isn't exactly unheard of.
Nope. Apple handed over the information it had, which is what a warrant is for. The FBI wanted Apple to write special software, and Apple quite properly argued about that in the court system, since they disagreed with it. The courts do not exist to be rubber stamps for government agencies.
Let's see. There was no reason the think there was anything useful on that phone (the terrorist's personal phone had been wiped before the terrorist attack), and the FBI ordered the employer to do something that ended the possible access. Moreover, you're getting your entities mixed up. The FBI indeed could do anything with the phone.
Apple's security technology has been improving. The phone in question was an iPhone 5C, which is the last model without the Secure Enclave, which removed a good many attack avenues.
Obama did a lot of things liberals liked, and a lot of things liberals didn't like. Don't confuse liberals with mainstream Democrats.
"Deplatform"? What does that have to do with free speech? Free speech is the right to say what you want, not the right to use someone else's platform.
A social medium is valuable to the extent that it has my friends and family on it. If only 10% were on one platform, 10% on another, etc., what's the point?
We'd love more powerful hardware. We spend a lot of work trying to get things to work faster on the computers we have. If we had computers that ran faster, we could spend more time getting stuff to work than getting it to work fast. It's not a common problem, but there are people who are writing software that solves hard problems.
That's why the Agile Manifesto is written to discourage fundamentalism.
Because, when you're making progress only 25% as fast as expected, you need six-hour daily meetings to figure out why. Duh. Haven't you ever been a manager?
I've concluded that Libertarianism, like Communism, is unworkable for societies formed of actual human beings.